Lesane v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 23, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-06989
StatusUnknown

This text of Lesane v. United States (Lesane v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lesane v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC =: DATE FILED: September 23, 2024 STEVEN LESANE, Movant, 24-CV-6989 (KMW) v. 18-CR-527-5 (KMW) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER TO AMEND Respondent. KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge: Movant Steven Lesane, currently incarcerated in FCI Elkton in Ohio, brings this pro se application challenging the judgment entered in United States v. Lesane, No. 18-CR-527-5 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2021). For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the application should be redesignated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and grants Movant leave, by December 23, 2024, to withdraw the application or to file an amended Section 2255 motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW A prisoner in federal custody may bring a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking his conviction or sentence on the grounds that it violates the Constitution or United States law, was imposed without jurisdiction, exceeds the maximum penalty, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court has the authority to review and deny a Section 2255 motion before directing an answer “[i]|f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party 1s not entitled to relief.” Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b); see Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (emphasis in original); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d

78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (citing Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).

BACKGROUND

Movant Steven Lesane challenges his August 17, 2021 judgment of conviction, in which he pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). See United States v. Lesane, No. 18-CR-527-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2021), ECF No. 251. Movant appealed his conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissed the appeal from the judgment of sentence. United States v. Lesane, No. 21-2057- CR, 2023 WL 1812878, at *3 (2d Cir. Feb. 8, 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 228 (Oct. 2, 2023). The Court received an undated application from Movant, with an envelope postmarked on August 19, 2024, which was entered onto the court’s docket on September 13, 2024. Lesane, 18-CR-527-5, ECF No. 296. In the application, Movant states that he had sent a letter to the court in “late [J]uly” 2024, seeking an extension of time to file a Section 2255 motion.1 He

refers, among other things, to his having received ineffective assistance of counsel and states that “[a] DNA could have prevented [the harm to him from a victim impact statement] and proved the defendant[’s] innocence, a false testimony of victim.”2 (ECF 1 at 1.)

1 The Court has not located any record of a July 2024 letter from Movant having been received. 2 The Court quotes from the application verbatim. All spelling, punctuation, and grammar are as in the original unless noted otherwise. DISCUSSION I. Designation of Application as Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts “to the resolution of ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’” Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 2012). The Second Circuit has held that “a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the

timeliness of a [habeas] petition until a petition is actually filed[,]” because prior to an actual filing, “there is no case or controversy to be heard[.]” Green, 260 F.3d at 82; United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). “Where a motion, nominally seeking an extension of time, contains allegations sufficient to support a claim . . . , a district court is empowered, and in some instances may be required, under Haines [v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)], to treat that motion as a substantive motion for relief.” Green, 260 F.3d at 82. Here, Movant’s untitled application could be construed as a motion for relief under Section 2255 because he seeks to vacate his sentence, and he includes some substantive grounds for relief. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146–

47 (2d Cir. 2001) (Section 2255 “is generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner’s challenge to his conviction and sentence”). II. Leave to Amend or Withdraw Application Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings requires a motion to specify all of a movant’s available grounds for relief, setting forth the facts supporting each of the specified grounds and stating the relief requested. Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 2(b)(1)–(3). A Section 2255 motion must permit the court and the respondent to comprehend both the movant’s grounds for relief and the underlying facts and legal theory supporting each ground so that the issues presented in the motion may be adjudicated.3 Movant’s application, when construed as a Section 2255 motion, is deficient because he does not set forth the facts supporting the grounds for relief. Moreover, because there are stringent limits on a movant’s ability to bring a second or successive motion under Section 2255, a movant must have an opportunity to withdraw an

application before the court recharacterizes it as a Section 2255 motion. Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582, 584 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Therefore, if Movant did not intend to pursue relief under Section 2255, he may notify the Court in writing by December 23, 2024 that he wishes to withdraw the application. The Court concludes that Movant’s application should be construed as a Section 2255 motion and that he should be afforded an opportunity to amend his Section 2255 motion to include all of his grounds for relief and the facts supporting those grounds. The Court therefore grants Movant leave to file an amended Section 2255 motion by December 23, 2024. If Movant does not file an amended Section 2255 motion or otherwise notify the Court that he intends to

proceed with this application as a Section 2255 motion, the application will be deemed withdrawn.4

3 Rule 2(c) requires that the motion must substantially follow a standard form, such as the form provided by this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Eric Adams v. United States
155 F.3d 582 (Second Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Luis G. Leon
203 F.3d 162 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Mahon v. Ticor Title Insurance Company
683 F.3d 59 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Acosta v. Artuz
221 F.3d 117 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lesane v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesane-v-united-states-nysd-2024.